On Marketing is our home for articles written by people who aren't regular CMO Network contributors with their own pages. It’s a forum for thinkers and doers in the areas of marketing, advertising and media to share content that matter to CMOs.

The Real Story Behind Apple's 'Think Different' Campaign

Back at the agency I gathered the creative teams and briefed them on the assignment. Most of the teams worked directly for me on the Nissan business, and a few others were junior art directors that served as Lee’s creative assistants. There was no time to wait for a long written-out strategy or to put together a detailed creative brief. We needed to figure out how to get Apple back on track fast.

All of the creatives had used Apple computers for years. They were not only well aware of the brand — they lived it and loved it every day. They really didn’t need a formal strategy. I requested that people start creating ideas immediately and we’d review work in a week. Meanwhile the account team, agency planners and our new business team began pulling as much information as possible on Apple’s strengths and weaknesses in the marketplace.

(photo courtesy of Rob Siltanen)

Apple had some brand zealots in various creative industries, and we thought maybe the best way to stop the bleeding was to do some testimonials with famous celebrities we had heard were Apple backers. We found that people such as Steven Spielberg and Sting used Apple computers, and so did several other prominent creative stars. Conversely, we saw a lot of articles talking about Apple negatively — many people in the business world were calling Apple computers “toys” that were incapable of “real” computing. Meanwhile, the press started suggesting that buying an Apple was a dumb purchase, and they spoke freely of the fact that Apple had a miniscule and shrinking market share while also having a fraction of the software applications of classic PCs. Apple’s situation was outright ugly. But through ugly situations come beautiful opportunities.

The next week we gathered in a large conference room at the agency where everyone had their work tacked up on wallboards. The room was filled with photos, pencil sketches, rough ideas and taglines. You know that scene in the movie “A Beautiful Mind” where the room is plastered with paper on every inch of wall space? Well, during a new business pitch or preparation for a big project, our conference rooms typically looked like that. This pitch was no exception. About four different creative teams had work represented, and virtually all of it was mediocre. Through quantity doesn’t necessarily come quality.

But there was one campaign that jumped out at me. And it jumped out in a big way.

It was a billboard campaign that had simple black and white photographs of revolutionary people and events. One ad had a photo of Einstein. Another had a photo of Thomas Edison. Another had a photo of Gandhi. Another had the famous photo of flowers placed in gun barrels during the protest of the Vietnam War. At the top of each image was the rainbow-colored Apple logo and the words “Think Different.” Nothing else.

The creator of the work was a brilliant art director named Craig Tanimoto. Craig had worked with me for many years (mainly on the Nissan business), and he virtually always had a unique way of looking at things. When I started my own ad agency a few years later, Craig was one of the first creative people I hired.

Craig’s Apple campaign seemed big and fresh in a room that was filled with classic computer shots and stereotypical celebrity photos. I loved it. But at the same time, the work seemed in need of explanation.

I asked Craig what it all meant, and he said, “IBM has a campaign out that says “Think IBM” (it was a campaign for their ThinkPad), and I feel Apple is very different from IBM, so I felt “Think Different” was interesting. I then thought it would be cool to attach those words to some of the world’s most different-thinking people.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Great article! Let’s hope it straightens out the misconceptions and “revisionist” history.

I have some essentially mint posters from the “Think Different” campaign. I still watch the videos of the commercial.

Two notes, though. First, you and your agency also come off as arrogant when you felt that you “deserved” the business.

Second, Jobs had much more at stake than you did. You were after more business, but had a successful company. As Jobs said at the D8 conference, Apple was close to facing bankruptcy. That might explain some of Jobs’ behavior.

I’m not sure what your background is or how familiar you are with the ad biz. If you are not at all, I can see why the agency would come across to you or an outsider as “Arrogant”. But the reality is that Chiat Day probably did deserve the business.

First, I think its fair that I disclose I’ve been in the Ad business on the creative side for over 15 years, and I’ve worked at Chiat Day and with both Lee Clow and Rob Siltanen. So whatever bias that may give me…so be it.

While I have no illusions about the difference between the products and services provided by an organization and the marketing/advertising used to promote their brands, I do think that the line between the two can be at times thin. I’ve seen many great brands destroyed by mediocre advertising and I’ve seen mediocre products succeed with great advertising. It irks me to think of the countless times I’ve seen business people dismiss the impact of advertising when it’s working but are quick to blame advertising when it’s not.

Chiat Day did a lot of amazing work for Apple before Jobs was ousted, the least of which is the history making “1984″ spot. When Steve left, Chiat Day was also dismissed under what i believe were less than fair circumstance. Then CEO Scully had a long time relationship with BBDO that I suspect played a big roll in the dismissal. This happens all the time. We expect it in the industry…but it doesn’t make it fair or right.

I believe when Rob and Lee thought they deserved the business it was A) because they had been removed under questionable circumstances. And more importantly B) The agency was arguably the best you could hire, not only by their standards but as acknowledged by many even outside the biz. It’s my opinion (perhaps arrogant on my part) that in some sense Apple, it’s visionary leader, and the world, deserved the work of Chiat Day!! and ultimately proved it.

I looked up the word ARROGANT in the dictionary. It’s defined as follows: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities:

The key word in that definition is “exaggerated”. Given the effectiveness of their past work and ultimately what “Think Different” accomplished for Apple I’d say Lee and Rob and Chiat Day’s sense of their own importance and their abilities was frankly conservative.

Your posting is “revisionist” about CrApple, making them out to be some super-power in their market.

Here’s the FACTS: Jobs and his Pirates either stole or BOUGHT every piece of major technology – Stole Widgets from Konfabulator, BOUGHT Final Cut, Logic Pro, GarageBand, Apple Works, etc. The iPhony is a complete rip-off of the year earlier LG Prada. iPud predated by the pocket RIO. Gateway had a 11″ LCD Tablet with Touch Screen LCD with handwriting recognition in 2002!

Steve Jobs was a bastard to work for, insulting and berating his employees in front of their peers (I worked there in the 80′s and saw it personally), and he was the most arrogant ass I ever met.

He walked away from his first child claiming until a paternity suit in the 90′s that she was not his and never paid a cent of support.

All Steve Jobs was, was a CON MAN and great at spinning BS to dup all the AppleTard lemmings.

gslusher, Some insight that might help. Maybe not. I worked at that agency for a stretch. Also for Apple for a stretch. Jobs was an #$#$# at times and regardless of what’s ‘at stake’, there’s a thing called poise and he didn’t always have it. Genius of a man. But that doesn’t mean you get to be an $#$# to people whenever you want. Period. Also, he bailed on the company and wanted to sell the stock at one point. I was there.

Second point. Chiat/Day did deserve to be given that business. Clients abuse agencies every day because they can and because they don’t value what agencies do. Gee, you think Apple would’ve had that turnaround without them? Rob’s campaing proved their point. Lee Clow in a lot of ways, made that company. He should never have been asked to ‘pitch’ against some holding company that had no emotional investment in Apple like he’d made. His reaction in the room says it all though. Typical Lee. Smartest guy in the room. He knew the opportunity and seized it. Chiat/Day literally made some companies into what they are. Just as Wieden + Kennedy has done with Nike and now the Old Spice brand, and The Martin Agency has with Geico. There are few agencies like those and Goodby in San Francisco, with the courage to only work with clients with the courage to do the right things. Jobs was lucky Clow is the guy he is. And of course, Clow and Rob and everyone made the most of it, along with Apple, to their credit.

bobnboulder, I find your post to be amusing. While marketing certainly plays a role, it is but one small part of many that make or break a company. If you are selling product that is indistinguishable from your competition, marketing can help make a difference. In the case of Apple, you are completely delusional when you write things like “Gee, you think Apple would’ve had that turnaround without them? “. The answer to that question is an obvious “Yes!”. Apple started creating product that was itself remarkable and worthy of attention, starting with the original iMac. Do you really think your marketing could have made Apple’s beige box products into what Apple is today, just by marketing? Similarly, by creating an aura of secrecy around future products, Apple managed quite a bit of free press for new product releases that were far more effective than any particular marketing campaign.

You are selective with your facts and put a negative spin on neutral things. Yes a lot of buying of other companies goes on in this industry – so? A lot of people forget Microsoft bought PowerPoint believing MS invented presentation technology. I used the original PowerPoint on the Mac.

What do you mean stole? Are you referring to the fact that Xerox PARC invited Apple in to see the window technology Alan Kay, Larry Tessler and others had invented. The real story is that Jobs and Apple ‘got it’ whereas others, including Xerox managers did not. Without Apple, Xerox’s ideas would most likely have died. And in 1979, taking it on was a huge risk.

Even the pad idea (Dynabook) came from Alan Kay in the 1970s, so since he was one of the Xerox people who departed to Apple.

Did you really work for Apple? Doesn’t sound like it, although I can accept that Jobs was brash and ascorbic, but that really is needed in dealing with engineers who would have kept computers for nerds rather than a useful tool for mankind.

AMAZING. Advertising moving the needle, one of the hugest inflection points in history. Everyone thinks it’s just because of product, but you pointing out that this ad campaign moved the needle a full one year before the actual new product of the colored iMacs existed… That is the crux.

“Think different” was the inflection point, NOT the new products, because it came a year before, and inspired the company for the rest of its history. “Think different” is a far more important ad than the 1984 ad, in the final analysis, and should probably supplant it as #1 of all time.

Sadly, this feels like yet another ‘entrepreneur’ standing on the shoulders of the late Mr. Jobs. The plethora of articles from people “connected” to him now showing up, often to promote their own wares, feels so desperate, somehow. Of course, this article has the sixth paragraphs in obligatory three sentences out of seven pages note that Jobs was a visionary, good commencement speaker and warm husband and father. Then it swerves back to self promotion for yet another service building on the reputation of Steve Jobs. If that isn’t self promotion, what is? If anyone thinks that this or any ad campaign made Apple or allowed Apple to capture the heart and mind of computer users world wide, best stay in the self-promotion business and stay out of creating products that make a difference.

To your point about whether or not the campaign had an impact on users, you are dangerously close to the delusional off-ramp. While I did not work on the campaign, I had the distinct honor and pleasure of weeding through every piece of data associated with the impact of that specific campaign. The proof of the campaign itself (as there was no new product to launch at the time and trying to find software for a Mac was as pathetic as the token Hannukkah table display at Christmastime…virtually non-existent). The case study isolated the power of that campaign practically down to the minute the campaign launched and was awarded the Grand Effie by the NY chapter of the American Marketing Association for it’s genius. It is still my favorite ad of all times and am grateful to the trait in Steve Jobs that allowed him to recognize the right thing to do even after he had been abusive. “sorry” would have been nice but hey, then we are talking about perfection rather than sheer genius and who would want to mess with that?

It looks more like a self-advertisement to this unknown Rob Siltanen to promote himself, and made it look like HE and not SJ had the MOST contribution to this AD—he put way toooo much importance to his role, sorry BUT epic fail!